Weighing the ocean with bottom-pressure sensors: Robustness of the ocean mass annual cycle estimate

10Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We use ocean bottom-pressure measurements from 17 tropical sites to determine the annual cycle of ocean mass. We show that such a calculation is robust, and use three methods to estimate errors in the mass determination. Our final best estimate, using data from the best sites and two ocean models, is that the annual cycle has an amplitude of 0.85 mbar (equivalent to 8.4 mm of sea level, or 3100 Gt of water), with a 95% chance of lying within the range 0.61-1.17 mbar. The time of the peak in ocean mass is 10 October, with 95% chance of occurring between 21 September and 25 October. The simultaneous fitting of annual ocean mass also improves the fitting of bottom-pressure instrument drift. © 2014 Author(s).

Figures

  • Figure 1. Locations of test sites and bathymetry from Nemo 1/12◦ model.
  • Figure 2. Bottom-pressure data from the 17 test sites (mbar, offset for clarity), following subtraction by least squares fitting of tides with periods of fortnightly and shorter. Stars indicate the start of sensor deployments. There may be gaps in data within deployments. Black squares indicate convergence warnings in the drift fitting. These are not necessarily on the shortest deployments. The overlaid green line shows the sensor drift fitted using the iterative technique on all sites simultaneously. The end dates of the ocean models are also indicated. The y-axis offset between sites is 15 mbar.
  • Table 1. Ocean circulation models used in this study.
  • Figure 3. Drift fitting to site 15. The yellow line is the fit to the raw bp record (blue), without taking account of the annual mass signal or other corrections. Green is the iterative fit to just that site, and magenta is the fit with the annual fitted to all sites simultaneously (discussed later).
  • Figure 4. Phasor diagrams for annual cycles at each site, for: (a) local bottom pressure pANNm predicted using iterative fitting; (b) local bottom pressure pANNm predicted without iterative fitting (sites 3 and 8 are outside the axes); (c) local pressure ph and global ocean mass mh predicted by two hydrology models: GLDAS-1 is shown with stars (ph) and cross (mh), GLDAS-2.0 with squares (ph) and diamond (mh); (d) global ocean mass mo, using a hydrology model GLDAS-1 to provide Fs . Axes for (c) are indicated by red box on (a). All converged sites are included, some have large error bounds to be described below.
  • Figure 5. Scatter of pANNm for each site with noise added to the bottom-pressure records. Subplot axes are identical to Fig. 4a.
  • Figure 6. Comparison of pANNm derived from different models, for each site. Models are indicated as ECCO (blue), NEMO12 (green), NEMO4 (red), OCCAM12 (cyan), OCCAM4 (magenta). 95 % of results lie within the contours. No contours are plotted if there is less than 13 months overlap between model and record data at a site. Subplot axes are identical to Fig. 4a.
  • Figure 7. Probability density functions (PDFs) for the amplitude and phase of mo calculated from each site with noise added to the bottompressure records, and mappings Fs from hydrology and atmosphere model. Convergence was too poor at site 9 to calculate a PDF; 95 % of results fall inside the white contour. Subplot axes are identical to Fig. 4a.

References Powered by Scopus

The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project

26400Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data

4597Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Global Land Data Assimilation System

4311Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

A window on the deep ocean: The special value of ocean bottom pressure for monitoring the large-scale, deep-ocean circulation

48Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Detection of sea level fingerprints derived from GRACE gravity data

44Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A comparison of interannual hydrological polar motion excitation from GRACE and geodetic observations

26Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Williams, J., Hughes, C. W., Tamisiea, M. E., & Williams, S. D. P. (2014). Weighing the ocean with bottom-pressure sensors: Robustness of the ocean mass annual cycle estimate. Ocean Science, 10(4), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-10-701-2014

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘21‘22036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

50%

Researcher 6

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

15%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 18

69%

Environmental Science 4

15%

Engineering 3

12%

Physics and Astronomy 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0